Bilateral Keratoconus in a Patient with Isolated Foveal Hypoplasia

This is a Photo Essay and does not have an abstract

Long-term Outcome of Limbal Stem Cell Transplantation for Management of Total Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency due to Chemical Burn

 Purpose: To evaluate the long-term outcome of limbal stem cell transplantation for management of total limbal stem cell deficiency due to chemical burn. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cross sectional study; records of patients with history of severe (grade III to IV) chemical burns who underwent limbal stem cell transplantation in Labbafinejad Medical Center, Tehran, Iran between 2006 and 2016 were reviewed and data including demographic characteristics, visual acuity, surgical interventions and outcomes were reported. Results: Fifty eyes of fifty patients with a history of conjunctival limbal autograft (N = 24) or keratolimbal allograft (N = 26) with at least 12-months follow-up were included. The overall 1-year and 5-year survival was 100 % and 84.1 % for conjunctival limbal autograft and 80.4 % and 40 % for keratolimbal allograft, respectively (P = 0.037). Corneal transplantation was performed after limbal stem cell transplantation in 20 eyes after conjunctival limbal autograft and 25 eyes after keratolimbal allograft. The 1-year and 5-year corneal graft survival was 93.3 % and 63.8 % after conjunctival limbal autograft and 92 % and 38.4 % after keratolimbal allograft (P = 0.005 for five year survival). There was a significant improvement in LogMAR BCVA (1.79 versus 2.17, P < 0.001) in all patients with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion: Severe chemical burn is associated with significant ocular morbidity and long-term prognosis is poor. Graft survival rate was significantly better in conjunctival limbal autograft compared to keratolimbal allograft when comparing the Long-term outcome of limbal stem cell transplantation for management of total limbal stem cell deficiency due to chemical burn.Keywords: Limbus Cornea, Stem Cell, Transplantation, Cornea, Eye Burns   

Decision fusion in healthcare and medicine : a narrative review

Objective: To provide an overview of the decision fusion (DF) technique and describe the applications of the technique in healthcare and medicine at prevention, diagnosis, treatment and administrative levels. Background: The rapid development of technology over the past 20 years has led to an explosion in data growth in various industries, like healthcare. Big data analysis within the healthcare systems is essential for arriving to a value-based decision over a period of time. Diversity and uncertainty in big data analytics have made it impossible to analyze data by using conventional data mining techniques and thus alternative solutions are required. DF is a form of data fusion techniques that could increase the accuracy of diagnosis and facilitate interpretation, summarization and sharing of information. Methods: We conducted a review of articles published between January 1980 and December 2020 from various databases such as Google Scholar, IEEE, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and web of science using the keywords decision fusion (DF), information fusion, healthcare, medicine and big data. A total of 141 articles were included in this narrative review. Conclusions: Given the importance of big data analysis in reducing costs and improving the quality of healthcare; along with the potential role of DF in big data analysis, it is recommended to know the full potential of this technique including the advantages, challenges and applications of the technique before its use. Future studies should focus on describing the methodology and types of data used for its applications within the healthcare sector

Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden. To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019. The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles. The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.Funding/Support: The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. Dr Aljunid acknowledges the Department of Health Policy and Management of Kuwait University and the International Centre for Casemix and Clinical Coding, National University of Malaysia for the approval and support to participate in this research project. Dr Bhaskar acknowledges institutional support from the NSW Ministry of Health and NSW Health Pathology. Dr Bärnighausen was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through the Alexander von Humboldt Professor award, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Dr Braithwaite acknowledges funding from the National Institutes of Health/ National Cancer Institute. Dr Conde acknowledges financial support from the European Research Council ERC Starting Grant agreement No 848325. Dr Costa acknowledges her grant (SFRH/BHD/110001/2015), received by Portuguese national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, IP under the Norma Transitória grant DL57/2016/CP1334/CT0006. Dr Ghith acknowledges support from a grant from Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF16OC0021856). Dr Glasbey is supported by a National Institute of Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship. Dr Vivek Kumar Gupta acknowledges funding support from National Health and Medical Research Council Australia. Dr Haque thanks Jazan University, Saudi Arabia for providing access to the Saudi Digital Library for this research study. Drs Herteliu, Pana, and Ausloos are partially supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084. Dr Hugo received support from the Higher Education Improvement Coordination of the Brazilian Ministry of Education for a sabbatical period at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, between September 2019 and August 2020. Dr Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam acknowledges funding by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Fellowship and National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leadership Fellowship. Dr Jakovljevic acknowledges support through grant OI 175014 of the Ministry of Education Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. Dr Katikireddi acknowledges funding from a NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17). Dr Md Nuruzzaman Khan acknowledges the support of Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University, Bangladesh. Dr Yun Jin Kim was supported by the Research Management Centre, Xiamen University Malaysia (XMUMRF/2020-C6/ITCM/0004). Dr Koulmane Laxminarayana acknowledges institutional support from Manipal Academy of Higher Education. Dr Landires is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación, which is supported by Panama’s Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Dr Loureiro was supported by national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia under the Scientific Employment Stimulus–Institutional Call (CEECINST/00049/2018). Dr Molokhia is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center at Guy’s and St Thomas’ National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. Dr Moosavi appreciates NIGEB's support. Dr Pati acknowledges support from the SIAN Institute, Association for Biodiversity Conservation & Research. Dr Rakovac acknowledges a grant from the government of the Russian Federation in the context of World Health Organization Noncommunicable Diseases Office. Dr Samy was supported by a fellowship from the Egyptian Fulbright Mission Program. Dr Sheikh acknowledges support from Health Data Research UK. Drs Adithi Shetty and Unnikrishnan acknowledge support given by Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education. Dr Pavanchand H. Shetty acknowledges Manipal Academy of Higher Education for their research support. Dr Diego Augusto Santos Silva was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil Finance Code 001 and is supported in part by CNPq (302028/2018-8). Dr Zhu acknowledges the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas grant RP210042

Recurrent peripheral stromal keratitis following corneal collagen cross-linking: A case report

Purpose: Corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) has become the standard initial intervention in eyes with progressive keratoconus (KC) that have not undergone keratoplasty. The prolonged exposure of the de-epithelialized cornea predisposes it to adverse complications, such as microbial keratitis and melting. Herein, we report a case of bilateral recurrent peripheral stromal keratitis following CXL. Case Report: We present a 29-year-old woman who complained of ocular redness and discomfort in both eyes for 4 months, and had undergone bilateral CXL 10 months before. The best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was 60/200 in the right and 80/200 in the left eye. Both eyes showed moderate conjunctival hyperemia, dilation, and engorgement of the perilimbal episcleral vessels. There was a peripheral corneal stromal infiltration with thinning, and an overlying epithelial defect in the right eye with a lucid interval from the limbus. She was treated with lubricating eye drops and ointments and topical corticosteroids every 4 hours for 2 weeks then slowly tapered off. Afterwards, she experienced multiple recurrences in both eyes, which were successfully managed with topical corticosteroids and lubricants. After 2 years, her BSCVA was 20/30 with −3.00-5.50 * 90 in the right eye and 20/40 with −4.00-4.50 * 90 in the left. Conclusion: Although CXL is a safe method, studies with longer follow-ups are needed to investigate the risk of rare complications

Visual and refractive outcomes of phacoemulsification with implantation of accommodating versus standard monofocal intraocular lenses

Purpose: To compare distant and near visual function after cataract surgery with implantation of Crystalens HD or Tek-Clear as accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs), versus SA60AT as a standard IOL. Methods: The study included 62 eyes of 58 patients divided into three groups using three different IOLs: Crystalens HD (Bausch and Lomb, NY, USA), Tek-Clear (Tekia, CA, USA) and SA60AT (Alcon, TX, USA) were implanted in 23, 14 and 25 eyes, respectively. Corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected and distance corrected near visual acuities (UCNVA and DCNVA), near point of accommodation (NPA), spectacle freedom and patient satisfaction were assessed six months postoperatively and compared between the three groups. Results: After 6 months, all patients showed significant improvement in CDVA with no significant difference among the study groups. However, UCNVA and DCNVA were significantly better in patients implanted with accommodating IOLs. NPA was closest in the Crystalens HD group, followed by Tek-Clear and monofocal SA60AT (P < 0.001). Patients with accommodating IOLs were more likely to become spectacle free and satisfied with their near vision as compared to subjects receiving a monofocal IOL. Conclusions: Accommodating IOLs (Crystalens HD and Tek-Clear) effectively reduce the necessity for spectacles after cataract surgery

Measurement of central corneal thickness using ultrasound pachymetry and Orbscan II in normal eyes

Purpose: To compare ultrasound pachymetry and Orbscan II for measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT) in normal eyes. Methods: The current study was performed at Labbafinejad Medical Center (LMC), Tehran, Iran. Three hundred eyes from 150 healthy individuals referred for keratorefractive surgery were assessed first by Orbscan II and then by ultrasound pachymetry, and CCT values were recorded and compared. Results: Overall, Orbscan II overestimated CCT as compared to ultrasound pachymetry by about 2.4% (mean values 547.6 ± 34.7 versus 534.8 ± 34.7, respectively, P < 0.001). The difference was more significant when CCT was less than 500 microns (mean values 493.2 ± 16.9 versus 479.9 ± 15.6, mean overestimation: 2.6%, P < 0.001). There was good linear correlation between the two methods (Pearson′s correlation r = 0.968, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Orbscan II has good correlation with ultrasound pachymetry for measurement of CCT in normal eyes; however Orbscan II should not be used to evaluate corneal thickness before keratorefractive surgeries, as it tends to overestimate corneal thickness and may result in undesirable, low residual stromal thickness

Successful management of diffuse unilateral subacute neuroretinitis with anthelmintics, and intravitreal triamcinolone followed by laser photocoagulation

Purpose: Diffuse unilateral subacute neuroretinitis (DUSN), a form of posterior uveitis, is secondary to the presence of a highly motile nematode in the intraretinal or subretinal space. Herein, we report a case of DUSN that was successfully managed by an intravitreal injection of triamcinolone and laser therapy. Case Report: A middle-aged man with complaint of decreased vision and marked unilateral vitritis and neuroretinitis. Fluorescein angiography revealed disc leakage, vessel wall staining, and diffuse track-like transmission defects of the RPE. Optical coherence tomography confirmed the subretinal location of the worm. The patient received oral thiabendazole and an intravitreal injection of triamcinolone acetonide. After 10 days, media haziness decreased, and a live motile subretinal worm was identified. Direct laser photocoagulation was performed to destroy the worm. After two months, a localized chorioretinal scar developed and no further active inflammation and subretinal worms were detected. Conclusion: Intravitreal steroids can be used safely in cases with DUSN and may help detect the causative worm for applying laser photocoagulation